Guns - page 20. | Bitcointalksearch.org

nimda

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

0xFB0D8D1534241423

I'm missing Florida:

Quote

Pennsylvania;40;3.62;52.04;39.45;95.11;
Florida;41; ;59.45;71.18;130.63;
Rhode Island;42;1.51;18.73;28.57;48.81;

Funny how I didn't notice that until I ran the RegEx. /^.*?;\d*?;([^;]*).*$/

nimda

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

0xFB0D8D1534241423

Quote from: FlipPro on July 22, 2012, 10:34:18 PM

Bitcoin geniuses who know more than law enforcement officials, compiling their own data in an attempt to disprove the obvious. Cheesy

... the amount of ego seen in this forum is astonishing.

Do computer nerds really know EVERYTHING Huh

If you came to Bitcoin Talk it would sure seem that way...

And you guys wonder why the Internet laughs at us... Undecided

I started this thread because I was feeling a disconcerting lack of opinion. I've been spectating the debate, and both sides have come up with some interesting data. However, it has been far from a satisfactory debate in which people use actual logic. "Do computer nerds really know everything?" <-- I don't, but I can certainly compute correlation coefficients where that data is useful. Personally, I find providing some medium-level maths calming and enjoyable. I won't spend hours on differentiation for free, but I've computed binomial distribution for forum members. Math doesn't lie, and if I get something wrong, it's easy enough to prove so.

Give me a few minutes to find r on the rest of the data.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FlipPro on July 22, 2012, 10:38:34 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 10:35:40 PM

Quote from: FlipPro on July 22, 2012, 10:34:18 PM

Bitcoin geniuses who know more than law enforcement officials, compiling their own data in an attempt to disprove the obvious. Cheesy

... the amount of ego see in this forum is astonishing.

I don't recall yanking your chain....

This is a public debate. You are stupifying the public. Therefore I feel a need to respond...

In other words, "duty calls"? Or perhaps this has more to do with it?

FlipPro

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1015

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 10:35:40 PM

Quote from: FlipPro on July 22, 2012, 10:34:18 PM

Bitcoin geniuses who know more than law enforcement officials, compiling their own data in an attempt to disprove the obvious. Cheesy

... the amount of ego see in this forum is astonishing.

I don't recall yanking your chain....

This is a public debate. You are stupifying the public. Therefore I feel a need to respond...

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FlipPro on July 22, 2012, 10:34:18 PM

Bitcoin geniuses who know more than law enforcement officials, compiling their own data in an attempt to disprove the obvious. Cheesy

... the amount of ego see in this forum is astonishing.

I don't recall yanking your chain....

FlipPro

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1015

Bitcoin geniuses who know more than law enforcement officials, compiling their own data in an attempt to disprove the obvious. Cheesy

... the amount of ego seen in this forum is astonishing.

Do computer nerds really know EVERYTHING Huh

If you came to Bitcoin Talk it would sure seem that way...

And you guys wonder why the Internet laughs at us... Undecided

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: nimda on July 22, 2012, 10:20:13 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 10:18:06 PM

Quote from: nimda on July 22, 2012, 10:11:10 PM

The result is that the data shows "only" a correlation coefficient of 0.1606

For which dataset? I can split them off for you, if you'd like.

For the Total Gun Crime per 100,000 pop. I should have specified that. Would you like the data for the others? RegEx is a wonderful thing; it's not a big deal if there's interest.

The other numbers would be nice. To clarify, In this case, does a high (positive) coefficient mean that high x->high y, ( / ) or does it mean that high x -> low y ( \ )?

nimda

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

0xFB0D8D1534241423

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 10:18:06 PM

Quote from: nimda on July 22, 2012, 10:11:10 PM

The result is that the data shows "only" a correlation coefficient of 0.1606

For which dataset? I can split them off for you, if you'd like.

For the Total Gun Crime per 100,000 pop. I should have specified that. Would you like the data for the others? RegEx is a wonderful thing; it's not a big deal if there's interest.

Oh, and what is this thread doing without a graphic from Yale?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: nimda on July 22, 2012, 10:11:10 PM

The result is that the data shows "only" a correlation coefficient of 0.1606

For which dataset? I can split them off for you, if you'd like.

nimda

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

0xFB0D8D1534241423

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 09:39:58 PM

Quote from: nimda on July 22, 2012, 09:37:11 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 03:37:48 PM

So, What's the correlation in that dataset, FirstAsshole?

Well uh... I just watched a very nice performance of the Shakespeare play "Much Ado about Nothing," so I'm cracking up whenever someone says "ass" (no seriously, the guy who played Conrade was hilarious), and I don't wish to "written down AN ASS," but if you give me the raw data of that dataset I can find the correlation coefficient for you

Ready and waiting for you. (click the words "raw data" in the sentence directly below the image in that post)

Yes, well... uh... how about something parse-able? I'm a programmer, not a Microsoft Office wizard.
Even Zamzar had nfi Tongue

Luckily this poorly-built site worked for me. I hope my hacky Notepad++ regular expression produced the correct pared-down data of the "Total Gun Crime" statistic

The result is that the data shows "only" a correlation coefficient of 0.1606

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: nimda on July 22, 2012, 09:37:11 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 03:37:48 PM

So, What's the correlation in that dataset, FirstAsshole?

Well uh... I just watched a very nice performance of the Shakespeare play "Much Ado about Nothing," so I'm cracking up whenever someone says "ass" (no seriously, the guy who played Conrade was hilarious), and I don't wish to "written down AN ASS," but if you give me the raw data of that dataset I can find the correlation coefficient for you

Ready and waiting for you. (click the words "raw data" in the sentence directly below the image in that post)

nimda

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

0xFB0D8D1534241423

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 03:37:48 PM

So, What's the correlation in that dataset, FirstAsshole?

Well uh... I just watched a very nice performance of the Shakespeare play "Much Ado about Nothing," so I'm cracking up whenever someone says "ass" (no seriously, the guy who played Conrade was hilarious), and I don't wish to "written down AN ASS," but if you give me the raw data of that dataset I can find the correlation coefficient for you

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

So, Here's the chart from that data...

More Permissive<------------------------------------------->Less Permissive

And, if anyone doubts me, here's the raw data that I used. You can verify it against the data Explodicle linked to. It's the same info.

The original data (That FirstAscent posted) did not have information on DC's permissivity re: gun laws, but it's widely accepted as the strictest in the country, so I placed it at "51". If someone has data that contradicts this, I'd be glad to see it, and will revise my chart. Also, a note on Florida: There was no data for firearms murders for that state, though overall that does not look to have created much of an anomaly when you consider how much greater the other two numbers are in comparison, across the board.

So, What's the correlation in that dataset, FirstAsshole?

Taz

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Hmm.. Guess it's not over then.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Explodicle on July 22, 2012, 02:14:07 PM

Dammit I found this data too late to save an interesting discussion!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Excellent data. They even offer it in a spreadsheet. It does not, unfortunately, include any measurement of "permissivity" of the gun laws in each state, I'll just use the rankings from the previous data.

Graph is coming, but it will take some time to get everything collated.

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

Dammit I found this data too late to save an interesting discussion!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on July 22, 2012, 01:56:35 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 01:50:03 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on July 22, 2012, 01:41:17 PM

I don't feel inclined to bother until you accept that the correlation is strong (as per the wikipedia article, which states that anything above 0.5 is strong), and that the trend is clear despite noise. If you need to plot a running average or perform regression analysis to demonstrate this to yourself, then by all means, do so.

If you can't concede a point based upon statistics because it disagrees with your ideology, then why should I expend effort in continuing the discussion in the direction you would prefer it to go. I believe my last post was more than fair with regard to discussion.

Fucking troll.
"Several authors have offered guidelines for the interpretation of a correlation coefficient. However, all such criteria are in some ways arbitrary and should not be observed too strictly. The interpretation of a correlation coefficient depends on the context and purposes. "

.698 correlation, when you are looking at all gun deaths means nothing. So what if there are fewer gun suicides? That just means there are more pills or bathtub suicides. Find me data on gun crime. Then, if that data shows even a .5 correlation, I will eat my fucking hat.

Respond to the quote from the article you linked to, at the very least.

It's rather sad that you can't separate the concept of correlation from the interpretation of it. We can't move on until you understand the difference. I suggest you go focus on your Colorado conspiracy theory in the other thread ( https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1046661 ) and reap the benefits of that fruitful exploration.

I could put together data that shows correlation much stronger than .69 for anything I want, just by tossing in extra factors, or taking others out. You cannot separate the correlation from the context of the data and shout "It correlates!" Of fucking course making it harder to get a gun makes it less likely that someone who wants to kill themselves has a gun available to do it. Pills are easy to get a hold of. The data is too damn noisy to call .698 "strong". I'm going to repeat my request one last time: Show me data on gun crime vs. gun law, and if it correlates, I will heartily accept that gun control laws help. But I know you won't. You won't even respond to the article you fucking linked to. Whatever. Have a nice life, fuckwad.

I'm done wasting my time with you. You are literally not worth my time. I don't know what you're trying to push, here, but I'm certain it's just more bullshit. Unless you have something productive to say, go take a flying fuck off a short pier.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 01:50:03 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on July 22, 2012, 01:41:17 PM

I don't feel inclined to bother until you accept that the correlation is strong (as per the wikipedia article, which states that anything above 0.5 is strong), and that the trend is clear despite noise. If you need to plot a running average or perform regression analysis to demonstrate this to yourself, then by all means, do so.

If you can't concede a point based upon statistics because it disagrees with your ideology, then why should I expend effort in continuing the discussion in the direction you would prefer it to go. I believe my last post was more than fair with regard to discussion.

Fucking troll.
"Several authors have offered guidelines for the interpretation of a correlation coefficient. However, all such criteria are in some ways arbitrary and should not be observed too strictly. The interpretation of a correlation coefficient depends on the context and purposes. "

.698 correlation, when you are looking at all gun deaths means nothing. So what if there are fewer gun suicides? That just means there are more pills or bathtub suicides. Find me data on gun crime. Then, if that data shows even a .5 correlation, I will eat my fucking hat.

Respond to the quote from the article you linked to, at the very least.

It's rather sad that you can't separate the concept of correlation from the interpretation of it. We can't move on until you understand the difference. I suggest you go focus on your Colorado conspiracy theory in the other thread ( https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1046661 ) and reap the benefits of that fruitful exploration.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on July 22, 2012, 01:41:17 PM

I don't feel inclined to bother until you accept that the correlation is strong (as per the wikipedia article, which states that anything above 0.5 is strong), and that the trend is clear despite noise. If you need to plot a running average or perform regression analysis to demonstrate this to yourself, then by all means, do so.

If you can't concede a point based upon statistics because it disagrees with your ideology, then why should I expend effort in continuing the discussion in the direction you would prefer it to go. I believe my last post was more than fair with regard to discussion.

Fucking troll.
"Several authors have offered guidelines for the interpretation of a correlation coefficient. However, all such criteria are in some ways arbitrary and should not be observed too strictly. The interpretation of a correlation coefficient depends on the context and purposes. "

.698 correlation, when you are looking at all gun deaths means nothing. So what if there are fewer gun suicides? That just means there are more pills or bathtub suicides. Find me data on gun crime. Then, if that data shows even a .5 correlation, I will eat my fucking hat.

Respond to the quote from the article you linked to, at the very least.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 01:33:04 PM

Oops. I'll take credit for that fuck-up. I should have been clearer that the following portion is what I wanted you to address, not the first part. The first part is done. .698 correlation, when you include all gun deaths, whether accidental, suicide, or as a result of violence (both in defense and as a result of attack, no less!), is simply not strong enough to show that restricting guns will reduce gun violence. Too much noise in the data, coming from all of those other deaths.

Address this, please:

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 02:24:47 AM

Tell you what: you find me data about gun crime, and I'll make another graph. If that one shows even this level of correlation, I'll eat my hat, switch positions, and start crying gun control from the rooftops. But I bet you can't.

Oh! and while I was looking up info on that data, I found this lovely little nugget:

Quote

"I am generally skeptical of gun laws," says Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA. "The theory is that gun laws may prevent crimes of passion—domestic crimes, altercations over traffic incidents, or committed by someone who is otherwise law-abiding but has an anger problem… gun-control laws can potentially do something, but the kind of crime by which they can do the least is a mass shooting."

That's from the very same article those data come from.

I don't feel inclined to bother until you accept that the correlation is strong (as per the wikipedia article, which states that anything above 0.5 is strong), and that the trend is clear despite noise. If you need to plot a running average or perform regression analysis to demonstrate this to yourself, then by all means, do so.

If you can't concede a point based upon statistics because it disagrees with your ideology, then why should I expend effort in continuing the discussion in the direction you would prefer it to go. I believe my last post was more than fair with regard to discussion.

Topic: Guns - page 20. (Read 22182 times)